Important Arbitration Decisions

CBA Article 22 Holiday Pay–Various Grievances

July 28, 2023   |   Sean Ryan, Association Board Member   |   Jonathan Oliff, Company Board Member   |   Dana Edward Eischen, Impartial Board Member/Chairman

The union, represented by the TWU-IAM Association, won the decision. The System Board of Adjustment found that American Airlines violated Article 22(A)(10) of the M&R JCBA and Article 22(A)(11) of the MLS JCBA with the TWU-IAM Association when it did not provide holiday pay to the named Grievants, each of whom was on an unpaid FMLA, military leave, or occupational injury (OJI) leave of absence on the day of the holiday. This decision was detailed on pages 13 and 14 of the document.


July 27, 2023   |   Sean Ryan, Union Designee   |   Jonathan Oliff, Company Board Member   |   Bonnie Saber Weinstock, Impartial Board Member/Chairman

The decision on the grievance was mixed: some parts were upheld, and others were not. The ruling found that American Airlines did not follow the collective bargaining agreements correctly with their attendance rules introduced on November 15, 2021. 

Giving Protected Work to Management Personnel (SOR)

July 24, 2017  |  Alexander Gerulis, Union Member  |   Michael Beirne, Company Member   Fredric R. Horowitz, Esq., Neutral Member

The arbitrator’s opinion concludes that the transfer of SOR tower control duties at LAX and DEN is prohibited by the 2016 Agreement, specifically by LOA 9, which states that the Company will not contract out any work currently performed by IAM-represented United employees through July 1, 2024. However, the transfer at SFO or ORD is not prohibited as it occurred before the effective date of the 2016 Agreement.

Allocator/Crew Chief Dispute – Presidential Grievance Article 33(B)

September 25, 2021  | Union Board Members: Gary Peterson  |   Company Board Members: Lucretia Guia   | Neutral Board Member: Stephen Crable, Esquire

Although the record in this case does not establish a violation of Article 39.B of the JCBA by the Company using management employees to assign and direct the work of covered employees where Crew Chiefs were readily available, u nder such circumstances in the future the inter-relationship between Articles 7 .D and E. and Article 39 .B as described above in VI.B. should provide guidance as to what is and is not permissible. The Company did not violate Article 8 of the JCBA when it failed to assign and train Fleet Service Crew Chiefs on new equipment or technology associated with the Allocator function.